Mage pet nerf 100% bot now....

[Valkyn37]

So should I reroll a main ? not getting epic any time soon and higher level pets doing max 58 damage. so now just a summon/coth bot ? or is this a "bug" ?

[HalflingSpergand]

Reroll banana

[Gustoo]

Tell us more about the details not everyone is a mage so I don't know anything at all about what you're going through.

Legitimately asking I am a forum quest warrior but not getting in to play the game and don't even have a mage.

Give us the deets my friend.

[Baler]

https://i.imgur.com/1VS1D7J.png

[Fleelord]

Rerolling until this ish is fixed. Unannounced pet nerf with no mention in patch notes. ???????

[Albanwr]

So should I reroll a main ? not getting epic any time soon and higher level pets doing max 58 damage. so now just a summon/coth bot ? or is this a "bug" ?

that was always the way it was meant to be!

[cmccorkle66]

Rerolling until this ish is fixed. Unannounced pet nerf with no mention in patch notes. ???????

Telin: Corrected the level requirements for the Vocarate pets and Clarity II spells.

[Fleelord]

Telin: Corrected the level requirements for the Vocarate pets and Clarity II spells.

Yeah I like the part that mentions nerfing the damage of ALL mage pets.

[Sauryan]

it was suppose to happen during velious not kunark, from what i heard :)

[cd288]

Telin: Corrected the level requirements for the Vocarate pets and Clarity II spells.

That’s not a pet damage change. The vocarate spells were a required level higher than they were supposed to be

[CancerMage]

mages getting nerfed is basically as classic as it gets. and then un nerfed, then re nerfed, why do you need the term nerf stick was invented. it literally stems from classic eq devs trying to "fix" mages.

they never could. and never will be able to this day. you either make them to weak, or to powerful. there is no way to fix it without totally revamping the class.

You can literally cite any of 30 mage "fixes" to counter the one they just made. lol. go find them.

[Bardp1999]

58 damage seems reasonable, whats the issue here

[damus1]

They hit for 56 at level 49, thats the issue. Mages were indeed OP in classic, but not nearly as much in kunark.. Seems awfully harsh to kick them as they were already spiraling towards complete irrelevancy in velious before this.

[sajbert]

They hit for 56 at level 49, thats the issue. Mages were indeed OP in classic, but not nearly as much in kunark.. Seems awfully harsh to kick them as they were already spiraling towards complete irrelevancy in velious before this.

Surprise-changes are rarely fun. I really wish devs would let players in the loop more what they’re thinking, doesn’t mean they need to be part of the decision process, just let them be in the know.

Today you could level an enchanter and when you finally get somewhere BLAM charm nerf out the blue, oh mr casual guess you can rerroll.

[derpcake2]

If you didn't learn from the pet issues at launch that staff is trying to make mages players life as bad as possible, you probably deserve the hundreds of wasted hours.

[derpcake2]

Telin: Corrected the level requirements for the Vocarate pets and Clarity II spells.

First it took them 6? 10? months to fix the pet spell level disadvantage for mages ... then they couple it with a nerf.

A+ griefing guys, I'd give some tips on how to ruin the experience further for people playing the class, but I understand there are already several people working on that.

[Jimjam]

Have mages been gifted with OP pets for the ere previous to this patch? or is this patch out of line with the era?

Please gather evidence if the current iteration of pet is not correct for this era, and if needed submit findings.

[Vaarsuvius]

58 damage seems reasonable, whats the issue here

If you think having 57-60 pets marginally better than 52-55 ones for a class that relies exclusively on their pet to do anything then yes, it's perfectly reasonnable

if you consider an enchanter's animation will do better than a mage's pet for a player of the about same level with their master's haste, slow, and buffs then it's perfectly reasonable...

If you now consider necro pets which unless I'm mistaken are now the best pets in the game, then it's also reasonable...


Mages are so OP, I would suggest devs nerf our pets down until theyr'e about as good as druids' teddy bears.


Oh, and dont forget to get rid of pet track too please

[Jimjam]

If you think having 57-60 pets marginally better than 52-55 ones for a class that relies exclusively on their pet to do anything then yes, it's perfectly reasonnable

if you consider an enchanter's animation will do better than a mage's pet for a player of the about same level with their master's haste, slow, and buffs then it's perfectly reasonable...

If you now consider necro pets which unless I'm mistaken are now the best pets in the game, then it's also reasonable...


Mages are so OP, I would suggest devs nerf our pets down until theyr'e about as good as druids' teddy bears.


Oh, and dont forget to get rid of pet track too please

You do realise the mage can group with the enchanter to benefit from the same buffs? As the base mage pet is better than the enc, the force multiplier of enchanter buffs is far more effective for the mage.

[Dolalin]

The new values seem classic to me.

https://web.archive.org/web/20020810023332/http://magecompendium.com/Pets/Pet_Statistics.htm

[derpcake2]

The new values seem classic to me.

https://web.archive.org/web/20020810023332/http://magecompendium.com/Pets/Pet_Statistics.htm

That table doesn't even have HP values, it isn't complete and should be looked at in that light.

Despite this you've managed to get necro pets above mage pets when it comes to DPS.

Good job. Of course this was lobbied for behind the scenes, can't have a public discussion while presenting selective and incomplete evidence.

The data you linked is from august 2002, aka. long after velious launch. This (https://web.archive.org/web/20010223160655/http://www.magecompendium.com/Pets/Pet_Statistics.htm) list of data is from februari 2001, a lot closer to the current green timeframe. This has higher max hit numbers.

Why did you choose to link out of era evidence, with more relevant data being present (but not supporting your case)?

Even assuming that site is correct, which it gives little reason to do, you seem to have nit-picked your evidence to further your personal goals.

[Vaarsuvius]

You do realise the mage can group with the enchanter to benefit from the same buffs? As the base mage pet is better than the enc, the force multiplier of enchanter buffs is far more effective for the mage.

I do, but I was just trying to put pet power in perspective

Magicians have their pet and nukes. Period

Enchanters have pets too plus
Root
Mez
Slow
Haste
Charm
Runes
Hp/ Stat temp buffs
Fear
Nukes
Debuffs

I most probably forgot some stuff in that list

So my question is, do you find it fair for magicians to get their one and only tool nerfed to be on par with Enchanters.

Mage epic pet got a nerf a couple months ago, now all regular pets do? Are Mages so incredibly powerful their ability to solo mobs nedded to be reduced this way?

And please, don't give me the classic excuse we both know this is BS.
Or if you want to go that way, fine with me, but then I demand a 8 hour repop timer on Magi P'Tasa in PoH as he should be, and was on Live.

May be all the Mages waiting on that one last stupid drop will be able to get their epic

[Dolalin]

The data you linked is from august 2002, aka. long after velious launch. This (https://web.archive.org/web/20010223160655/http://www.magecompendium.com/Pets/Pet_Statistics.htm) list of data is from februari 2001, a lot closer to the current green timeframe. This has higher max hit numbers.

Why did you choose to link out of era evidence, with more relevant data being present (but not supporting your case)?


Table was probably corrected as the months went on, the later version is more complete so I linked to it.

But it's not the only point of reference for this, if that's what you're thinking.

Here's a post from just after Kunark release:


posted 05-30-2000 03:03 AM

I saw a post from a person saying thet hit lev 57 and the pet was not good, only hitting for max 62 with a staff of elemental mastery, in other words one level above the 51 pet.

Don't know if it was true.

https://web.archive.org/web/20001016134431/forums.castersrealm.com/eq/Forum6/HTML/001647.html


60dmg + staff = 62dmg for 57 earth, it agrees with the site above.

[Izmael]

This ninja nerf makes me feel great to no longer actively play on P99.

I don't even play a mage, but the sheer fact that such a drastic change to a class has not been debated publicly beforehand means several things:

- Other similar changes will probably follow sooner or later as behind-the-scenes lobbying for nerfs seems now to be the trend on P99

- One's time investment on P99 is no longer as safe as we got into the habit of thinking. Your favorite character can become barely useful overnight, with no warning, and even no post-factum announcement (can there be a way to show more carelessness about players' feeling?)

- There's little doubt that whoever is behind this nerf is trying hard to get other nerfs in - channelling, enchanters, basically all casters. Then it will be the turn of the monks, or whatever.


Get on with your lives, guys. Stop wasting years of your lives on something that can be taken away from you tomorrow and nobody will care about your feelings.

[Jimjam]

Magicians have their pet and nukes. Period


Some magicians have friends too. The game is designed for classes to support each other. It’s not perfectly balanced. Melee have no pet, no nukes, generally don’t quad for 58 but they do fine.

If you think the nerf is not classic start/contribute to a bug thread. Somethings are easier to change than others, and many needed classic changes haven’t gained the inertia or designer attention yet.

I do hope magi in hate is made as classic as possible, but fixing the melee damage of a commonly used pet probably should be triaged higher than a rarely completed epic any way.

[Fammaden]

They could have buffed the pets instead and you'd still end up primarily a vending machine and coth bot in Velious. Sorry your reign of cheese strats is coming to an end on green, now go summon some rods or park on poop mtn like a good boy.

[Snortles Chortles]

Sorry your reign of cheese strats is coming to an end on green, now go summon some rods or park on poop mtn like a good boy.

[BlackBellamy]

such a drastic change to a class has not been debated publicly beforehand means several things:

Please name one thing that was debated publicly beforehand.

I mean idk I'm only half-facetious. Like I've been on these forums for a long ass time and I've never seen a dev post asking for community input regarding class or balance changes.

So if this mage change is a departure from the norm where now we need to extrapolate things I'd like to know if the norm was the norm.

[Vivitron]

If you think the nerf is not classic start/contribute to a bug thread.

It's already been stated a few times in this thread, but we do follow and participate in the bug threads, and would rather see change like this result from that process. We've seen both that it's easy to misinterpret old evidence and that some of the people most invested in getting changes made have an agenda based on their perception of game balance rather than emulating classic mechanics.

Edit: if the devs did it on their own initiative, that's not what would bother me. It's the prospect of back channel balance advocacy.

[HalflingSpergand]

Reroll bandana

[Fammaden]

BTW, mages get close to or the most DA items in the game. I'm sure ST will welcome you to do DA train aways for all of Velious if you want usefulness.

[Jimjam]

It's already been stated a few times in this thread, but we do follow and participate in the bug threads, and would rather see change like this result from that process. We've seen both that it's easy to misinterpret old evidence and that some of the people most invested in getting changes made have an agenda based on their perception of game balance rather than emulating classic mechanics.

Edit: if the devs did it on their own initiative, that's not what would bother me. It's the prospect of back channel balance advocacy.

You do raise a good point, I do think anything that is changed through the staff's own initiative could do with a bug thread just for clarity, transparency and the benefit of a few hundred extra eyes checking any changes before they happen.

[Bardp1999]

What was the old damage mage pets were doing?

[Darkwoo]

This seems like something that should have been better described in the patch notes.

[Fammaden]

What was the old damage mage pets were doing?

Max hit of 2 less, like he was saying 56 max hit vs. 58.

[PDX0621]

57 Max earth pet used to hit for 70. People are saying it hits for 60 now. Haven't confirmed.

[PDX0621]

Confirmed. Looks like max earth now hits for 58 instead of 70.

[Dolalin]

It should hit for 60 and for 62 with focus staff based on the sources I have. If there's been an error in the DB it will be fixed by devs I imagine.

Hitting for 70 was not classic though. I can't see that coming back.

[Jimjam]

It should hit for 60 and for 62 with focus staff based on the sources I have. If there's been an error in the DB it will be fixed by devs I imagine.

I think adjusting the min hit / db may have caused this if the random damage element / di wasn’t altered to offset that change.

[cd288]

Wait are mage pets actually lower dps than necro pets now? There’s no way that’s classic if so

[Dolalin]

Wait are mage pets actually lower dps than necro pets now? There’s no way that’s classic if so

The very first post on this page makes that exact same observation about necro vs mage DPS. Namely that necro might be better. Mages still have the most solid tanking pets though. And I'm pretty sure the backstabbing water pet is better than this guy makes out.

http://web.archive.org/web/20010711213516/http://everlore.com/magic/Magic.asp?ID=137956&mode=details&spname=Greater+Voceration:+Water&type=

It's also another reference for mage pets only hitting in the high 50s or 60.

[Baler]

Mage pet's proc's are better than necro pet proc.
Let's not compare the backstab necro pet to non-backstab elemental pets.

:)

[damus1]

that post states the mage was 55, so he was using vocaration:water, not the newly nerfed greater voceration.

[Vaarsuvius]

The very first post on this page makes that exact same observation about necro vs mage DPS. Namely that necro might be better. Mages still have the most solid tanking pets though. And I'm pretty sure the backstabbing water pet is better than this guy makes out.

http://web.archive.org/web/20010711213516/http://everlore.com/magic/Magic.asp?ID=137956&mode=details&spname=Greater+Voceration:+Water&type=

It's also another reference for mage pets only hitting in the high 50s or 60.

Well, I'm confused,

That ninja nerf happened because mage pets were perceived as too powerful, and so their offensive effectiveness has been reduced by about 15%, but necro pets which are about as good (rog pets for exemple) stay as they were and it's OK with everyone?

So let me get this straight

Mages + strong pets - > no no no
Necros with strong pets - > yes yes yes

Have anyone of you that keep repeating that myth that mage pets are so good at tanking ever played a mage post 55?

Ever tried to tank some trash in the Hole, kedge, DN, Kael, Seb, KC basement, SG, WW with such a pet? It'll get ripped a new one in a matter of seconds

Stop spreading some irrational hate because you've heard guildees or random dudes say that pets are all powerful, cause a huge amount of push or whatever BS you can think of

Find another scape goat please

[Vaarsuvius]

They could have buffed the pets instead and you'd still end up primarily a vending machine and coth bot in Velious. Sorry your reign of cheese strats is coming to an end on green, now go summon some rods or park on poop mtn like a good boy.

Good news for you,

Here's your mod rod. I've got plenty more for you when this once is down your throat or up yours

https://images.app.goo.gl/MUBYBNwsw7exRttf8

But I also have bad news

If you want to get to Trak, no CotH for you bitch, enjoy going there on your own and the ensuing CR. I'll be wating on poop hill

[luckysean]

that post states the mage was 55, so he was using vocaration:water, not the newly nerfed greater voceration.

But that doesn't fit in with their narrative so lets just ignore that part, ok pal?!?!

[luckysean]

The very first post on this page makes that exact same observation about necro vs mage DPS. Namely that necro might be better. Mages still have the most solid tanking pets though. And I'm pretty sure the backstabbing water pet is better than this guy makes out.

http://web.archive.org/web/20010711213516/http://everlore.com/magic/Magic.asp?ID=137956&mode=details&spname=Greater+Voceration:+Water&type=

It's also another reference for mage pets only hitting in the high 50s or 60.

Obviously reading comprehension is hard but that says they are both level 55. So can you point us to this evidence or is that shitty incomplete table the only thing you championed behind for this unclassic change.
Necro pets have never out dps'd mage pets. Sorry to burst your bubble. Maybe reroll a mage instead of lawyer-questing if you were unhappy.

[Dolalin]

I guess the question is, should something that's provably non-classic be kept because a lot of people have become accustomed to it? In this project the answer to that has traditionally been no.

If you have evidence that this isn't the way things were in 2001 then head off to the bug forums and provide it.

[Dolalin]

Obviously reading comprehension is hard but that says they are both level 55. So can you point us to this evidence or is that shitty incomplete table the only thing you championed behind for this unclassic change.
Necro pets have never out dps'd mage pets. Sorry to burst your bubble. Maybe reroll a mage instead of lawyer-questing if you were unhappy.

I don't know why I'm bothering, but from another post at that same Everlore link:


And yes, quad hit means four hits for the normal damage, so if your pets max was 60 (Greater Vocerates, or the Earth Vocerate with a mastery staff...)


If you feel necros and mages are unbalanced then the time to raise your concerns was 20 years ago mate.

[Dolalin]

Another one, which also proves that these pets were buffed in Luclin and hitting for 70ish wasn't in era:


8/14/02

Subject: Stealth fix to GV:A

The damage upgrades to the greater Vocarate
pets that occurred awhile back skipped over
the 59 air pet (up to that point, the best
group pet a mage had for their run through
59).

The last patch upped it's max damage to 68,
bringing it in line with the max damage of
the 60 water pet.


Happy happy, joy joy :)

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.games.everquest/c/Q0Ylgpft6P0/m/WosAQoGwjEAJ

[loramin]

I guess the question is, should something that's provably non-classic be kept because a lot of people have become accustomed to it? In this project the answer to that has traditionally been no.

Except when it comes to charm.

Everyone knows charm wasn't half as widely used in classic as it is on this server, and yet no one seems to be surfacing any research to try and get it fixed (or if they are, the staff seems to be ignoring it).

[putrid_plum]

Mage pets are now where they always should had been, good. Maybe fix Enchanter charming because it was never like this on live and everyone knows it.

[Arvan]

Surprise-changes are rarely fun. I really wish devs would let players in the loop more what they’re thinking, doesn’t mean they need to be part of the decision process, just let them be in the know.

Today you could level an enchanter and when you finally get somewhere BLAM charm nerf out the blue, oh mr casual guess you can rerroll.

Sorry you dont like classic everqueste

[Evia]

No enchanter on live charmed regularly. It was too unreliable because it would break randomly no matter how buffed your cha was. P99 enchanters aren’t classic that’s for sure.

[Selene]

maybe this "nerf" is just a bug? lets not jump to conclusions guys :)

[Snortles Chortles]

mages were always a trash tier class
hope this helps

[loramin]

maybe this "nerf" is just a bug? lets not jump to conclusions guys :)

Dolalain (our current classic research champion) has posted proof in other threads that this is a deliberate change to make things classic, and not a bug.

[loramin]

mages were always a trash tier class
hope this helps

I'm pretty sure that's false.

Everything I've read indicates that Mages were incredibly powerful on live at the start (eg. their pets were better tanks than actual tanks!) It was because of that they were nerfed by Verant, but they only became a "trash tier class" after the nerfing. For whatever reason (perhaps the difficulty of coding their early versions, or perhaps simply due to selective fixing on the devs' part) they never got that "Golden Era" here though, so they started at "decent/mid-range", and have only declined since :(

But look, classic is the point of this place. If it's technically difficult/impossible to provide the "golden era", I'm fine with playing a "as-close-to-classic-as-we-can-get" mage ... even if that means sucking. What bothers me is that other classes have been OBVIOUSLY unclassic for over a decade here, and yet the devs just turn a blind eye to it ... ignoring the upper-left corner when it comes to (say) charming.

[cd288]

Except when it comes to charm.

Everyone knows charm wasn't half as widely used in classic as it is on this server, and yet no one seems to be surfacing any research to try and get it fixed (or if they are, the staff seems to be ignoring it).

Standard Loramin post citing his own opinion and applying it to everyone else like “everyone knows!”

He’s the trump of P99 lol

[Hotel]

mages are useful for coth and das

pets are for nerds

[Tethler]

Good news for you,

Here's your mod rod. I've got plenty more for you when this once is down your throat or up yours

https://images.app.goo.gl/MUBYBNwsw7exRttf8

But I also have bad news

If you want to get to Trak, no CotH for you bitch, enjoy going there on your own and the ensuing CR. I'll be wating on poop hill

This guy mad

[loramin]

Standard Loramin post citing his own opinion and applying it to everyone else like “everyone knows!”

He’s the trump of P99 lol

Did you play on live? If you did you'd know that it's not "my opinion" that Enchanters were regarded as a group class; it was a fact. And if you've seen my other posts, you should know there's also tons of classic evidence stating as much. Even the most basic descriptions of the class, on site's like Caster's Realm, explicitly say as much (https://web.archive.org/web/20010207201429/http://eq.castersrealm.com/creationguides/enchanter.asp):

Soloing, whilst possible, is generally quite slow and as such they do not raise levels as quickly as some other classes as their experience is almost always through that of a group.

(And to be clear, that's not some "the game just started and no one knows anything" info ... it's from the earliest Caster's Realm archive I could find, which was two years into EQ!)

There is no question of opinion: charm is far more widely used here (not just by Enchanters, but also by Druids/Necros) than it was in classic.

[Dolalin]

I'm pretty sure that's false.

Everything I've read indicates that Mages were incredibly powerful on live at the start (eg. their pets were better tanks than actual tanks!) It was because of that they were nerfed by Verant, but they only became a "trash tier class" after the nerfing. For whatever reason (perhaps the difficulty of coding their early versions, or perhaps simply due to selective fixing on the devs' part) they never got that "Golden Era" here though, so they started at "decent/mid-range", and have only declined since :(

Mages were hot garbage at launch.

They had no researchable pets above 29, their pets did not wield weapons, and did not cast any spells except for the air pet invis. There was a bug where their pets would *run away* from anything that conned yellow or above. They would refuse to attack willowisps unless they physically hit you. Pet pathing was awful. Pets would attack other players in your group if hit physically or by an aoe. Pets did not double attack in their offhand without a weapon, and since mages couldn't give their pets weapons, they just didn't quad, ever, until January 2000. Burnout was a dot that slowly killed your pet.

However, melee were such trash and mana regen was so hard to get that mages were still wanted once they got their level 40(?) pets because the 30hp/tick out of combat regen was godly. Lower Guk groups only wanted pet classes not melee.

Anyways there was a lot wrong with the mage class in early Everquest and you have some rose tinted glasses on Loramin :p

[loramin]

Anyways there was a lot wrong with the mage class in early Everquest and you have some rose tinted glasses on Loramin :p

You just said it yourself:

Lower Guk groups only wanted pet classes not melee.

That's not rose-covered glasses, that's "Mages were more desired than Warriors or Paladins or Shadow Knights!"

Again, I acknowledge that making pets work that way might be too much to ask of our staff ... but you're the one with opaque glasses if you ignore that Mages did have our "time in the sun" on Live.

[Snaggles]

I don't remember specifics from live besides the epic pet being much better for all the effects plus the massive hp pool. That said, I'm not sure why a max lvl 49 earth would hit for just 2 less than the max lvl 56/7 earth or the same as the low 50's version. That's pretty horrible scaling even for pets...lvl 44 to 49 is a 8 max hit difference.

EoT hits for up to 62 unfocused so 4 more than the same class/level mage pet. Plus lifetap. Plus fear immunity. Pretty solid trade-off for a slightly smaller hp pool (vs the earth).

I know we all have our opinions and revel in the nerfing of others. P99 is a salty place.
The logic of this doesn't seem to hold up though. I expect it's not intended or GM's will clarify shortly.

[Dolalin]

Emissary of Thule is not supposed to dual wield in the P99 timeline, just triple attack (rarely). Is it dual wielding / quadding on P99? That wasn't added till Luclin.


I am pretty certain that the Spectre pet does not Dual Wield. Most I have ever seen it hit is triples. It does certainly not both dual wield and triple attack since that would mean that it gets occasional quintuplets (5 hits at once).

Never ever seen it do more than 3 attacks at once. :( My bet is that they removed dual wield from the spec and replaced it with gay triple attack skill, making our pet, not a warrior, but more like a shadowknight without spells.

https://web.archive.org/web/20020713054536/http://necro.eqclasses.com/forums/post.asp?method=TopicQuote&TOPIC_ID=4135&FORUM_ID=3&CAT_ID=1&Forum_Title=Necromancer+Game+Guides&Topic_Title=**+DEFINITIVE+PET+GUIDE+**

[cd288]

Did you play on live? If you did you'd know that it's not "my opinion" that Enchanters were regarded as a group class; it was a fact. And if you've seen my other posts, you should know there's also tons of classic evidence stating as much. Even the most basic descriptions of the class, on site's like Caster's Realm, explicitly say as much (https://web.archive.org/web/20010207201429/http://eq.castersrealm.com/creationguides/enchanter.asp):



(And to be clear, that's not some "the game just started and no one knows anything" info ... it's from the earliest Caster's Realm archive I could find, which was two years into EQ!)

There is no question of opinion: charm is far more widely used here (not just by Enchanters, but also by Druids/Necros) than it was in classic.

And you can also find in era posts and a guide talking about how Charm is an extremely powerful tool (and describing different methods of charm soloing). There’s plenty of contradictory evidence for everything you’re talking about

[loramin]

There’s plenty of contradictory evidence for everything you’re talking about

I showed mine, you show your's. ;)

But again, all the proof you need was there if you played on live. Anyone who actually did thought of Enchanters as a group class, because that was the entire perception of the class across all servers. You saw them in groups: you did not see them out soloing (the way you did see Necros, Druids, etc. soloing ... frequently)

[starkind]

Boxing 3 mages on TakP is OP. Imo. That's were you people need to be lol.

[Snortles Chortles]

you know it
i know it
every body knows it

[Snaggles]

Emissary of Thule is not supposed to dual wield in the P99 timeline, just triple attack (rarely). Is it dual wielding / quadding on P99? That wasn't added till Luclin.

No idea, I don’t necro. Assumed it was a standard DW/double pet. Thought only Sham dogs don’t DW. Shows what I know :).

[Dolalin]

Until late Luclin you couldn't hand armor/weapons to spec pets, they just ate it:


SEPTEMBER 4, 2002

* Changed Specter pets so they're able to equip items and armor.

http://www.tski.co.jp/baldio/patch/20020904.html


Spec pets spawned with a no rent 2h scythe to keep them from dual wielding. It was a balance thing. They would only triple attack. Most necros rolled with the 56 monk pet in groups since its dps was higher and it could still tank okay.

So if that's missing on P99 it should be addressed.

[Sabin76]

Until late Luclin you couldn't hand armor/weapons to spec pets, they just ate it:



Spec pets spawned with a no rent 2h scythe to keep them from dual wielding. It was a balance thing. They would only triple attack. Most necros rolled with the 56 monk pet in groups since its dps was higher and it could still tank okay.

So if that's missing on P99 it should be addressed.

I don't know about you, but I don't exactly expect Necros to go out testing this, or reporting back if it's broken...

[Snortles Chortles]

im happy to report it totally works ok
no need to investigate

[Tunabros]

reroll to a druid ;)

-Azile

[Bardp1999]

I don't know about you, but I don't exactly expect Necros to go out testing this, or reporting back if it's broken...

The Necromancer Rogue pet is the clear winner in terms of pure DPS, but unless you are playing the class its hard to understand why Emissary of Thule feels so much better. First, it can actually tank and take hits pretty damn well, and it also Life Taps at a much higher rate than any of the other pets (further helping it stay alive and closing the gap in raw DPS). At high levels the Rogue pet and Monk pet are getting shit blasted by 1-2 AoEs or accidental agro and dieing literally all the time. Emissary of Thule is a vastly more reliable pet on Raids and honestly once you have it you should never summon any of your other pets... Get Arch Lich for maximum immersion (ghost army).

The QoL of Emissary of Thule outweighs any DPS discrepancy by miles, plus it's the coolest pet in the game by a lot. I pick Spectre over Werewolf 99 out of 100 times

[Sabin76]

The Necromancer Rogue pet is the clear winner in terms of pure DPS, but unless you are playing the class its hard to understand why Emissary of Thule feels so much better. First, it can actually tank and take hits pretty damn well, and it also Life Taps at a much higher rate than any of the other pets (further helping it stay alive and closing the gap in raw DPS). At high levels the Rogue pet and Monk pet are getting shit blasted by 1-2 AoEs or accidental agro and dieing literally all the time. Emissary of Thule is a vastly more reliable pet on Raids and honestly once you have it you should never summon any of your other pets... Get Arch Lich for maximum immersion (ghost army).

The QoL of Emissary of Thule outweighs any DPS discrepancy by miles, plus it's the coolest pet in the game by a lot. I pick Spectre over Werewolf 99 out of 100 times

Sure, but none of that speaks to whether or not it's able to equip weapons, armor, a muzzle, or does anything more than triple occasionally.

My point was that if Necros notice it quadding or even hitting for 5, they aren't about to report it as broken.

[Bardp1999]

Sure, but none of that speaks to whether or not it's able to equip weapons, armor, a muzzle, or does anything more than triple occasionally.

My point was that if Necros notice it quadding or even hitting for 5, they aren't about to report it as broken.

Correct - also why i didn't report anything you were actually asking about

[Snortles Chortles]

i agree with my obese friend

[Graahle]

I love it when “evidence” is “back on live I remember…”

That was 20 years ago you definitely don’t remember every little thing.

[Bardp1999]

1) not fat
2) not your frand
3) get fucked

[Snortles Chortles]

obese friend confirmed

[Gustoo]

I love it when “evidence” is “back on live I remember…”

That was 20 years ago you definitely don’t remember every little thing.

in 2021, the first days of project 1999 are further in the past than the first days of EQ live when project 1999 started.

Memories about details from 1999 are pretty shakey indeed.

[Fammaden]

Eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable sources of evidence. This is accepted science.

[Bardp1999]

This thread has reignited my lust for P99 (it really has), rolling my 3rd necromancer named Cruetraxa, level 2 already, cash you outside in field of bone my erudite

[azxten]

Nerf Enchanter

[Jimjam]

Until late Luclin you couldn't hand armor/weapons to spec pets, they just ate it:



Spec pets spawned with a no rent 2h scythe to keep them from dual wielding. It was a balance thing. They would only triple attack. Most necros rolled with the 56 monk pet in groups since its dps was higher and it could still tank okay.

So if that's missing on P99 it should be addressed.

This should be easily confirmed by checking in era logs and checking whether they pet 'sliced' (naked) or 'slashed' (has a scythe).

[Dolalin]

I had a look and it looks like I was wrong, it would quad but had a very low double-attack skill, like even as low as 150 maybe, so it would only quad once in a blue moon. Bug thread filed at any rate.

[Jimjam]

I had a look and it looks like I was wrong, it would quad but had a very low double-attack skill, like even as low as 150 maybe, so it would only quad once in a blue moon. Bug thread filed at any rate.

On p1999, even low level pets will double attack (I know this is a different skill to duel wield) occasionally. I figure they got the skill, but it is at the equivalent of 0. Maybe it was a similar circumstance for spectre pet dual wield?

[strete]

do we know if this is a bug, or should I work on my new necro or enchanter main?

[unsunghero]

Nerf Enchanter

I personally was charming quite a bit on enchanter in vanilla EQ, not sure where this idea that no enchanters were charming came from

I know my level 30-something vanilla EQ enchanter certainly didn't have the 235 buffed CHA that my P99 enchanter had at level 30. I bet a lot of classic EQ enchanters either didn't realize the benefits of cha to charming, or else for whatever reason valued int more. Also, when I was playing classic EQ, it was definitely NOT common knowledge to trade your charmed pets -MR items to lower chances of breaks, or to hand them torches to make them dual wield

I feel like a lot of the "power" of certain tactics is due to people having 20+ years to develop said tactics. This happened a lot in classic WoW too. Everyone found ways to min/max everything, and strategies were used that were almost unheard of in vanilla WoW (the most obvious being the world buff meta, where everyone in the raid gets every possible word buff then logged out until the raid, because these buffs gave your char basically +40%+ performance)

But yeah, nerf chanters out of spite for mages. I'll just roll the server's 923752387 necro. Necros are probably 5x as common as enchanters on Green. There's even more mages in the mid-level zones that I frequent than enchanters, something I didn't expect

[loramin]

But yeah, nerf chanters out of spite for mages. I'll just roll the server's 923752387 necro. Necros are probably 5x as common as enchanters on Green. There's even more mages in the mid-level zones that I frequent than enchanters, something I didn't expect

It's not about "nerfing chanters out of spite"; it's about being true to classic. Either we're going to be true to classic here, and that includes making mages suck as much as they actually did on live from '99-'01 (which I'm 100% for because, again, look in the upper-left corner) ... or we're not.

But no one can look me in the eye and say that we're really all about classic here ... when charming clearly isn't, and hasn't been for more than a decade. It's way too easy for Enchanters, but it's also far too easy for Druids ... even Druids with zero charisma gear and zero negative magic resist gear.

If charm was this easy in classic, everyone would have been doing it ... but the simple truth of the matter (as anyone with even half-remembered, clouded-by-pot-smoke memories of live already knows) is that charming was a niche thing on live in '99-'01. And it wasn't just because all those live players (an order of magnitude more than we have) were all idiots.

[unsunghero]

It's not about "nerfing chanters out of spite"; it's about being true to classic. Either we're going to be true to classic here, and that includes making mages suck as much as they actually did on live from '99-'01 (which I'm 100% for because, again, look in the upper-left corner) ... or we're not.

But no one can look me in the eye and say that we're really all about classic here ... when charming clearly isn't, and hasn't been for more than a decade. It's way too easy for Enchanters, but it's also far too easy for Druids ... even Druids with zero charisma gear and zero negative magic resist gear.

If charm was this easy in classic, everyone would have been doing it ... but the simple truth of the matter (as anyone with even half-remembered, clouded-by-pot-smoke memories of live already knows) is that charming was a niche thing on live in '99-'01. And it wasn't just because all those live players (an order of magnitude more than we have) were all idiots.

I have not seen any empirical evidence proof that charming is somehow "easier" on P99 than it was in vanilla. And this must include comparing rates of breaks with people of equal charisma, because I believe that enchanters on P99 are sporting, on average, much higher charisma rates in the low-mid levels than enchanters in vanilla were. Saying it "feels" easier or that it "appears" easier isn't going to cut it

Also, charisma does not impact rates of charm breaks for druids or necros on p99 nor did it in vanilla (but I could be wrong about the in vanilla part, I didn't play a druid or necro in vanilla EQ, just chanter and shaman). If charisma actually DID impact rates of charm breaks for druids, then druids who chose to wear high cha would actually be MORE capable charmers

[loramin]

I have not seen any empirical evidence proof that charming is somehow "easier" on P99 than it was in vanilla. And this must include comparing rates of breaks with people of equal charisma, because I believe that enchanters on P99 are sporting, on average, much higher charisma rates in the low-mid levels than enchanters in vanilla were. Saying it "feels" easier or that it "appears" easier isn't going to cut it

Also, charisma does not impact rates of charm breaks for druids or necros on p99 nor did it in vanilla (but I could be wrong about the in vanilla part, I didn't play a druid or necro in vanilla EQ, just chanter and shaman). If charisma actually DID impact rates of charm breaks for druids, then druids who chose to wear high cha would actually be MORE capable charmers

You're ignoring my core point. For Druids, charm is their best leveling path here ... even though everyone who played on live can agree that wasn't the case.

[unsunghero]

It's like you completely ignored what I wrote about Druids, and how even when they're not wearing any Charisma gear at all, charm is still their best leveling path here ... even though everyone who played on live can agree that wasn't the case.

Not wearing any charisma is irrelevant when the stat does absolutely nothing for them, nor did it in vanilla. They're not wearing any dex gear either, and leveling quite well. They must be broken!

edit: also quadding is probably faster exp than charming

[Bardp1999]

There are also so many Green necros because of Kunark droping and its a great alt

[rewinder47]

It's not about "nerfing chanters out of spite"; it's about being true to classic. Either we're going to be true to classic here, and that includes making mages suck as much as they actually did on live from '99-'01 (which I'm 100% for because, again, look in the upper-left corner) ... or we're not.

But no one can look me in the eye and say that we're really all about classic here ... when charming clearly isn't, and hasn't been for more than a decade. It's way too easy for Enchanters, but it's also far too easy for Druids ... even Druids with zero charisma gear and zero negative magic resist gear.

If charm was this easy in classic, everyone would have been doing it ... but the simple truth of the matter (as anyone with even half-remembered, clouded-by-pot-smoke memories of live already knows) is that charming was a niche thing on live in '99-'01. And it wasn't just because all those live players (an order of magnitude more than we have) were all idiots.

I don't remember charming being as prevalent back then, but I also don't remember everyone having the same BiS gear, and I especially don't remember everyone using GCD reset items. Charm breaks can be a pain in the ass without GCD reset, and though I wasn't a super hardcore player, I don't think I ever even heard of a GCD reset back then. We also didn't have Youtube tutorials on charming to let everyone know exactly what to do.

Time and knowledge makes a big difference. Look at what mages are doing in WoW classic as another example. Just crazy shit that no one was doing back in the day. It wasn't impossible, it just wasn't known about.

[loramin]

I don't remember charming being as prevalent back then, but I also don't remember everyone having the same BiS gear, and I especially don't remember everyone using GCD reset items. Charm breaks can be a pain in the ass without GCD reset, and though I wasn't a super hardcore player, I don't think I ever even heard of a GCD reset back then. We also didn't have Youtube tutorials on charming to let everyone know exactly what to do.

Time and knowledge makes a big difference. Look at what mages are doing in WoW classic as another example. Just crazy shit that no one was doing back in the day. It wasn't impossible, it just wasn't known about.

Yes, we have (unclassic) GCD resets here ... but no, it does not logically follow that because the (again, 10x or more) players on live didn't know about GCD resets, that was the reason they weren't charming.

Occam's razor applies here: it's far more likely that the charm mechanics here are more forgiving than live ... than it is that everyone live was an idiot, or that the only thing stopping them from charming was the lack of the goblin earring.

[Gustoo]

Druid charm you can do in rags just fine.

Was not a high level on live vanilla so I don't know how well it worked back then.

[Delekhan]

People most certainly used GCD items back then. I get the impression a lot of people here were children back in those days and didn't actually play end game in Era eq.

[whydothis]

Yes, we have (unclassic) GCD resets here ... but no, it does not logically follow that because the (again, 10x or more) players on live didn't know about GCD resets, that was the reason they weren't charming.

Occam's razor applies here: it's far more likely that the charm mechanics here are more forgiving than live ... than it is that everyone live was an idiot, or that the only thing stopping them from charming was the lack of the goblin earring.

But you have no proof so stop bringing it up. You keep going on and on and on about this but it's just a bunch of crap until you prove it. People charmed. Just because you didn't do it or see it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

[loramin]

But you have no proof so stop bringing it up. You keep going on and on and on about this but it's just a bunch of crap until you prove it. People charmed. Just because you didn't do it or see it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

My proof is basic logic, the same as with Bard's AoEing 100 mobs. No one could "prove" that classic mobs weren't AoEing 100 mobs all over the place ... but everyone who played on live knew (and could support with basic logic) that they weren't.

Similarly here, if we have variables A (how easy charming is, mechnically) , B (player knowledge of tricks like GCD clickes), C (external factors like crappy internet connections), and D (% of charm class players that charm), where A + B + C = D ... it doesn't add up.

D is massively different here compared to live, so that means one of either A, B, or C, or some combination, must have changed to account for it.

But B and C alone simply can't explain the discrepancy: not knowing about GCD clickies and crappy internet connections alone do not explain why thousands of Druids thought root/rot was a faster way to get to 60. It does not explain why the vast, vast majority of Enchanters (and literally every one I knew on live) leveled in groups, not solo. It doesn't explain D.

So again, basic logic ... and basic knowledge of what live was like ... dictates that A is not the same here as it was on live. And that's to be expected in an emulated game where the original code is lost to time ... but it doesn't mean we shouldn't still strive to improve that emulation, and make it more classic.

P.S. And even if I'm wrong and A wasn't a factor ... even if Nilbog perfectly reproduced every last mechanic related to charm exactly ... if our goal is to re-create classic EverQuest here, and something (just like Bard's AoEing 100 mobs) looks massively unclassic because of B + C factors, we should still fix it ... just as we did with AoEing.

But again, I just don't see how B + C can account for the entire discrepancy.

[unsunghero]

But again, I just don't see how B + C can account for the entire discrepancy.

And the fix is what? I'm assuming these servers incorporated as much of the original code as they could

Maybe the designers should modify the source code with an artificial charm break roughly every 3-5 minutes and have the game give a message "You have been inflicted by loramin's hazy memories of live" when it occurs so people would understand

[Scalem]

And the fix is what? I'm assuming these servers incorporated as much of the original code as they could

Maybe the designers should modify the source code with an artificial charm break roughly every 3-5 minutes and have the game give a message "You have been inflicted by loramin's hazy memories of live" when it occurs so people would understand

Who doesn’t like changes based off of people’s twenty year old memories and what they “feel” is correct?

[rewinder47]

My proof is basic logic, the same as with Bard's AoEing 100 mobs. No one could "prove" that classic mobs weren't AoEing 100 mobs all over the place ... but everyone who played on live knew (and could support with basic logic) that they weren't.

Similarly here, if we have variables A (how easy charming is, mechnically) , B (player knowledge of tricks like GCD clickes), C (external factors like crappy internet connections), and D (% of charm class players that charm), where A + B + C = D ... it doesn't add up.

D is massively different here compared to live, so that means one of either A, B, or C, or some combination, must have changed to account for it.

But B and C alone simply can't explain the discrepancy: not knowing about GCD clickies and crappy internet connections alone do not explain why thousands of Druids thought root/rot was a faster way to get to 60. It does not explain why the vast, vast majority of Enchanters (and literally every one I knew on live) leveled in groups, not solo. It doesn't explain D.

So again, basic logic ... and basic knowledge of what live was like ... dictates that A is not the same here as it was on live. And that's to be expected in an emulated game where the original code is lost to time ... but it doesn't mean we shouldn't still strive to improve that emulation, and make it more classic.

P.S. And even if I'm wrong and A wasn't a factor ... even if Nilbog perfectly reproduced every last mechanic related to charm exactly ... if our goal is to re-create classic EverQuest here, and something (just like Bard's AoEing 100 mobs) looks massively unclassic because of B + C factors, we should still fix it ... just as we did with AoEing.

But again, I just don't see how B + C can account for the entire discrepancy.

In WoW classic, where Blizzard has the exact rules in place that existed in vanilla, people are doing this: https://youtu.be/XT8iVQHVfQo?t=1380

Were mages soloing entire dungeons during the vanilla era? No, nobody was doing that. Now think about how the same amount of scrutiny and optimizing has happened to EQ.

Could the formulas for P99 be different or more lenient than the OG servers? Of course. But you are ignoring a huge part of the equation here. People who played from launch to Luclin had a little over 2.5 years to play and figure things out. There were no videos and the only information available was the item database on Allakhazam and hearsay from other players on forums.

During that time, how many people do you think got enchanters to a high enough level, with enough CHA gear to really give charming a good shot? Keep in mind, this would almost certainly be without GCD reset items, which are a HUGE boost to charming. You can't even re-cast charm after a stun without a GCD reset item. Even on P99, I'm not sure how much I would enjoy charming without those items. I'm willing to bet a lot of enchanters tried out charm when they first got it, found out it sucked (which it still does on P99 when you first get it), and never bothered with it again. Over 2.5 years time, with a lot of those people starting well after launch, and fucking around with alts and just trying to figure everything out, it's no wonder you didn't see everyone charming all the time.

Even simpler stuff people got wrong all the time. How many people during the classic era thought DEX was more important than STR for rogues? How many people thought monks need lots of AGI?

Your argument isn't nearly as strong as you think. The stuff enchanters pull off now with charm is on the same level as the stuff people are doing now in WoW classic.

[loramin]

During that time, how many people do you think got enchanters to a high enough level, with enough CHA gear to really give charming a good shot? Keep in mind, this would almost certainly be without GCD reset items, which are a HUGE boost to charming. You can't even re-cast charm after a stun without a GCD reset item. Even on P99, I'm not sure how much I would enjoy charming without those items. I'm willing to bet a lot of enchanters tried out charm when they first got it, found out it sucked (which it still does on P99 when you first get it), and never bothered with it again. Over 2.5 years time, with a lot of those people starting well after launch, and fucking around with alts and just trying to figure everything out, it's no wonder you didn't see everyone charming all the time.

And again ... what does this have to do with Druids? Druids don't need Cha gear, or -MR gear: why wasn't every Druid in live charming their way to 60?

Option #1: They were all idiots
Option #2: Their internet connections sucked
Option #3: Charming was harder on live, mechanically

[rewinder47]

And again ... what does this have to do with Druids? Druids don't need Cha gear, or -MR gear: why wasn't every Druid in live charming their way to 60?

Option #1: They were all idiots
Option #2: Their internet connections sucked
Option #3: Charming was harder on live, mechanically

I mean, if you want to literally ignore everything I said just because I didn't specifically mention Druids, that's cool. Even though the vast majority of it still applies. I leveled with a Druid to 50 and charm for sure broke more often than it did with my enchanter. He actually stopped using it, and I actually don't see a ton of druids doing it anyway. I've seen more snare kiting and root rotting than charming. People like to act like charming is super easy street, but you have to constantly be attentive when you've got a charmed pet-- you can't just AFK, like at all, or you could end up dead quickly. But keep complaining about it in every single thread I guess.

[Scalem]

And again ... what does this have to do with Druids? Druids don't need Cha gear, or -MR gear: why wasn't every Druid in live charming their way to 60?

Option #1: They were all idiots
Option #2: Their internet connections sucked
Option #3: Charming was harder on live, mechanically

I use to always charm on my Druid if I could because I thought it was super cool to run around with a pet. Do I remember if it broke every minute or was different then here? Not at all it was 20 years ago. All I accurately remember is I did it all the time because I enjoyed it. You and everyone else always advocates for changes based off of old memories and beliefs instead of just enjoying the game and appreciating what you have.

[TripSin]

In WoW classic, where Blizzard has the exact rules in place that existed in vanilla, people are doing this: https://youtu.be/XT8iVQHVfQo?t=1380

Were mages soloing entire dungeons during the vanilla era? No, nobody was doing that. Now think about how the same amount of scrutiny and optimizing has happened to EQ.

Could the formulas for P99 be different or more lenient than the OG servers? Of course. But you are ignoring a huge part of the equation here. People who played from launch to Luclin had a little over 2.5 years to play and figure things out. There were no videos and the only information available was the item database on Allakhazam and hearsay from other players on forums.

During that time, how many people do you think got enchanters to a high enough level, with enough CHA gear to really give charming a good shot? Keep in mind, this would almost certainly be without GCD reset items, which are a HUGE boost to charming. You can't even re-cast charm after a stun without a GCD reset item. Even on P99, I'm not sure how much I would enjoy charming without those items. I'm willing to bet a lot of enchanters tried out charm when they first got it, found out it sucked (which it still does on P99 when you first get it), and never bothered with it again. Over 2.5 years time, with a lot of those people starting well after launch, and fucking around with alts and just trying to figure everything out, it's no wonder you didn't see everyone charming all the time.

Even simpler stuff people got wrong all the time. How many people during the classic era thought DEX was more important than STR for rogues? How many people thought monks need lots of AGI?

Your argument isn't nearly as strong as you think. The stuff enchanters pull off now with charm is on the same level as the stuff people are doing now in WoW classic.

Great points. It's tragic that yours and everyone else's are just completely wasted on Loramin. He's hard stuck in his delusions.

[Erati]

on live GCD reset all your gems not just the top

'gasp'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9opZFThy95w

watch his jboots refresh them allllllll

[TripSin]

on live GCD reset all your gems not just the top

'gasp'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9opZFThy95w

watch his jboots refresh them allllllll

It does that on p99, too? The thing that is special about the first slot is that you can reset the cooldown after the spell has just been memorized (to a degree, there is still a hard cooldown after mem'ing the spell I believe, but it's still shorter than the normal cooldown that you would have to wait for after mem'ing the spell). I only skimmed the video you posted, but didn't see him mem'ing any spells.

[Erati]

It does that on p99, too? The thing that is special about the first slot is that you can reset the cooldown after the spell has just been memorized (to a degree, there is still a hard cooldown after mem'ing the spell I believe, but it's still shorter than the normal cooldown that you would have to wait for after mem'ing the spell). I only skimmed the video you posted, but didn't see him mem'ing any spells.

On P99 it only resets the single top slot, classically it should reset them ALL.

Watch when he clicks his jboots.

I think if the spell casting time is 10 second or longer you can memorize that spell GCD then instantly cast it but I could be wrong on the length of the spell required to cast immediately after memorization. Granted this will not work on long recast spells like Harvest, its only to bypass the normal cool down.

[Snortles Chortles]

j_ekugPKqFw

[TripSin]

On P99 it only resets the single top slot, classically it should reset them ALL.

Watch when he clicks his jboots.

I think if the spell casting time is 10 second or longer you can memorize that spell GCD then instantly cast it but I could be wrong on the length of the spell required to cast immediately after memorization. Granted this will not work on long recast spells like Harvest, its only to bypass the normal cool down.

I'm fairly certain clickies reset the GCD for all spell slots. I don't know why you're so confidently saying it only resets the first spell slot. I haven't played for like a month now, but I've gotten an enchanter up to 52 on green and I used the clicky reset to cast chain multiple, different spells back to back (e.g. color flux --> mez --> tash --> charm).

Resetting the cooldown after memorizing a spell is different. In this case you only get the first slot affected. I only remember trying it with a nuke and I know that if I mem the nuke, GCD clicky immediately, and then immediately try to cast it, it will go through the casting time and animation, but once the cast time is done the spell won't actually occur. However, if I mem the spell, clicky immediately, then wait like 2 or 3 seconds, then the spell will succesfully cast.

[unsunghero]

And again ... what does this have to do with Druids? Druids don't need Cha gear, or -MR gear: why wasn't every Druid in live charming their way to 60?

Option #1: They were all idiots
Option #2: Their internet connections sucked
Option #3: Charming was harder on live, mechanically

One other thing to consider is the live TLP servers. I haven’t played on these much but I’ve followed their forums quite a bit. From everything I’ve read on forums and TLP class guides, enchanters are able to charm there just as effectively as P99 in these expansions

The most powerful duo according to P99 forums? Enc+Clr. The most powerful duo according to TLP forums? Enc+Clr. The strat? Charm your way to lev 60. TLP makes no mention of “unlike P99 charm breaks are very frequent here” that I’ve ever read. The only big negative in regards to charm on the TLP is that eventually it is nerfed to where a charmed mob is -x% powerful as it would be non-charmed, I just forget what X was (20% less maybe?) in some future expansion

This is just going off what I’ve read, if anyone has played an enchanter on TLP to 60 during the classic-velious era they would be the one to ask

[Erati]

I'm fairly certain clickies reset the GCD for all spell slots. I don't know why you're so confidently saying it only resets the first spell slot. I haven't played for like a month now, but I've gotten an enchanter up to 52 on green and I used the clicky reset to cast chain multiple, different spells back to back (e.g. color flux --> mez --> tash --> charm).

Resetting the cooldown after memorizing a spell is different. In this case you only get the first slot affected. I only remember trying it with a nuke and I know that if I mem the nuke, GCD clicky immediately, and then immediately try to cast it, it will go through the casting time and animation, but once the cast time is done the spell won't actually occur. However, if I mem the spell, clicky immediately, then wait like 2 or 3 seconds, then the spell will succesfully cast.

On P99 it only resets the top slot.

[TripSin]

On P99 it only resets the top slot.

You are wrong. Really dumb thing to be stubbornly wrong on. But some of you people on this forum really never cease to amaze me with the depths a human can reach.

[Vaarsuvius]

In WoW classic, where Blizzard has the exact rules in place that existed in vanilla, people are doing this: https://youtu.be/XT8iVQHVfQo?t=1380

Were mages soloing entire dungeons during the vanilla era? No, nobody was doing that. Now think about how the same amount of scrutiny and optimizing has happened to EQ.

Could the formulas for P99 be different or more lenient than the OG servers? Of course. But you are ignoring a huge part of the equation here. People who played from launch to Luclin had a little over 2.5 years to play and figure things out. There were no videos and the only information available was the item database on Allakhazam and hearsay from other players on forums.

During that time, how many people do you think got enchanters to a high enough level, with enough CHA gear to really give charming a good shot? Keep in mind, this would almost certainly be without GCD reset items, which are a HUGE boost to charming. You can't even re-cast charm after a stun without a GCD reset item. Even on P99, I'm not sure how much I would enjoy charming without those items. I'm willing to bet a lot of enchanters tried out charm when they first got it, found out it sucked (which it still does on P99 when you first get it), and never bothered with it again. Over 2.5 years time, with a lot of those people starting well after launch, and fucking around with alts and just trying to figure everything out, it's no wonder you didn't see everyone charming all the time.

Even simpler stuff people got wrong all the time. How many people during the classic era thought DEX was more important than STR for rogues? How many people thought monks need lots of AGI?

Your argument isn't nearly as strong as you think. The stuff enchanters pull off now with charm is on the same level as the stuff people are doing now in WoW classic.

I beg to differ. There always have been and always will be players exploiting patching bugs to farm gold or AAs or whatever items or currency they're interested in. But I don't think they wiere/ would be stupid enough to advertise their doing so on internet forums. Would you?

I played with Charm during LDoN when mages were given the opportunity to to charm elementals with a spell (Arch Mage's call or something). That felt great to have a big ass pet hitting like a truck. Too bad it was unreliable AF and we did not have the tools to handle a pet break and it generally meant dead mage when it happened.

[Izmael]

It seems to reset all slots on the client, but only first slot will actually be reset server-side.

You will get the "spell recast time not met" message on other slots when the spell casting completes.

[jadier]

It seems to reset all slots on the client, but only first slot will actually be reset server-side.

You will get the "spell recast time not met" message on other slots when the spell casting completes.

No, what? This is wild. Clicking an instant-cast clicky resets the global cool down for all gems, allowing you to immediately begin casting a spell.

Some spells have cool downs longer than the global one, so if you cast one of those and click, you can’t immediately cast *that specific spell* until it’s cool down is up.

But really: root (click) dot (click) dot (click) is a successful and not-at-all obscure sequence for Shammies/necros. And the dots cast!

[Erati]

It seems to reset all slots on the client, but only first slot will actually be reset server-side.

You will get the "spell recast time not met" message on other slots when the spell casting completes.

this - imagine telling someone theyre so wrong when theyre so right :confused:

[starkind]

https://i.imgur.com/1VS1D7J.png

Serious question, would a standard 9mm round even fire in outer space?

[Jimjam]

Guns work by putting bullets in the bullet hole, so deff can come out of the deff hole.

As long as you keep putting the bullets in, you should keep getting deff come out.

Source: Ork physics 101.

[starkind]

The correct answer is yes (https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.interestingengineering.com/firing-gun-space-what-would-happen).

[Saisu]

The most powerful duo according to P99 forums? Enc+Clr. The most powerful duo according to TLP forums? Enc+Clr. The strat? Charm your way to lev 60. TLP makes no mention of “unlike P99 charm breaks are very frequent here” that I’ve ever read.

From what I’ve seen, TLPs are certainly not the same as original launch EverQuest. Here’s a post (https://www.reddit.com/r/everquest/comments/go4enb/list_of_quality_of_life_differences_between_tlp/?utm_source=amp&utm_medium=&utm_content=post_body) that states some of the major differences. There’s no telling what year the charm code they are using is from (or code for Charisma, or from which patch, or any number of things). Unfortunately not a great reliable source of info.

[Byrjun]

Imagine playing here for 5+ years and thinking that the devs actually nerf/buff things because of balance and not because they're just trying to get values as close to classic as possible.

[cd288]

From what I’ve seen, TLPs are certainly not the same as original launch EverQuest. Here’s a post (https://www.reddit.com/r/everquest/comments/go4enb/list_of_quality_of_life_differences_between_tlp/?utm_source=amp&utm_medium=&utm_content=post_body) that states some of the major differences. There’s no telling what year the charm code they are using is from (or code for Charisma, or from which patch, or any number of things). Unfortunately not a great reliable source of info.

So they’re not a reliable source of info, but apparently posts from random players 21-22 years ago (that are frequently contradicted by random posts from that time frame that say different things) are reliable according to anyone who is grasping at straws trying to find evidence to get charm nerfed lol

[cd288]

Imagine playing here for 5+ years and thinking that the devs actually nerf/buff things because of balance and not because they're just trying to get values as close to classic as possible.

Well to be fair they HAVE buffed or nerfed things for balance purposes at times in the past...so your comment is simply incorrect

[starkind]

So they’re not a reliable source of info, but apparently posts from random players 21-22 years ago (that are frequently contradicted by random posts from that time frame that say different things) are reliable according to anyone who is grasping at straws trying to find evidence to get charm nerfed lol

99% of us know what random posts were accurate and don't care how easy the game is. So we know it was harder and that it took full groups to reliably do anything outside of killing greens in the open sky world.

[cd288]

99% of us know what random posts were accurate and don't care how easy the game is. So we know it was harder and that it took full groups to reliably do anything outside of killing greens in the open sky world.

So if random posts are accurate why are there so many that contradict each other lol

[Saisu]

So they’re not a reliable source of info, but apparently posts from random players 21-22 years ago (that are frequently contradicted by random posts from that time frame that say different things) are reliable according to anyone who is grasping at straws trying to find evidence to get charm nerfed lol

You're jumping to conclusions. I'm only stating TLPs are not reliable (which is easily proven due to the mishmash of old/new code spanning over decades). Old posts from players 20+ years ago can also be not reliable. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

[Sabin76]

this - imagine telling someone theyre so wrong when theyre so right :confused:

I mean, you're both kind of right?

The top slot is "completely reset", while the others are "partially reset". By "partially reset", I mean that you can start casting immediately (the reset part), but if the cast time is less than the CD for that spell, then it won't fire (the partially part).

[Erati]

I mean, you're both kind of right?

The top slot is "completely reset", while the others are "partially reset". By "partially reset", I mean that you can start casting immediately (the reset part), but if the cast time is less than the CD for that spell, then it won't fire (the partially part).

thank you

On live it completely reset all the gems which was my initial point that got side tracked by the confusing graphical change. My entire premise was that all the P99 spell slots should act like the top slot but they dont, only the top slot does the 'complete reset' as you say.

[Izmael]

n/t

[Zuranthium]

Mages were hot garbage at launch.

They had no researchable pets above 29, their pets did not wield weapons, and did not cast any spells except for the air pet invis. There was a bug where their pets would *run away* from anything that conned yellow or above. They would refuse to attack willowisps unless they physically hit you. Pet pathing was awful. Pets would attack other players in your group if hit physically or by an aoe. Pets did not double attack in their offhand without a weapon, and since mages couldn't give their pets weapons, they just didn't quad, ever, until January 2000. Burnout was a dot that slowly killed your pet.

However, melee were such trash and mana regen was so hard to get that mages were still wanted once they got their level 40(?) pets because the 30hp/tick out of combat regen was godly. Lower Guk groups only wanted pet classes not melee.

Your 2nd paragraph contradicts your 1st paragraph, which is inaccurate anyway.

Mage pets without Dual-wielding were still doing lots of damage compared to Vanilla-era Melee classes, and the Fire pet did cast damage shield in the early days; the extra in-combat pet spells that were added a bit later just made the pets that much stronger. The issue of pets attacking party members was not a big deal, every decent Mage created hot button pet commands, and the pathing was generally manageable or not an issue.

Having less higher level pets was irrelevant for most of the playerbase, because barely anyone got above Level 35 by the time they were put in the game anyway. There was a HUGE wall at Level 30 back then for the playerbase, the first hell level, and Level 35 was even tougher because of the availability/difficulty of things to exp on.

[xmaerx]

Except when it comes to charm.

Everyone knows charm wasn't half as widely used in classic as it is on this server, and yet no one seems to be surfacing any research to try and get it fixed (or if they are, the staff seems to be ignoring it).

Because "Hits for 70 damage" versus "Hits for 58 damage" is quantifiable and objective.

It's hard to find encapsulated break rates on something like charm, or crit fail rates on something like pacify, or blur rates on Mesmerize because it's all subjective, and people are dumb, were dumb, and didn't post a whole lot of accurate testing. They did, however, complain about damage often, hence those posts.

"My pet broke so much tonight! It was like.. twice as often as it will be on P99 20 years from now!" -Exists, somewhere, definitely.

Will reiterate: A lot of the things that make enchanters OP are meta-gaming borderlined exploits. A pet is FAR, FAR harder to recapture without a GCD reset, and far less useful without being able to paci/blur it.

[cd288]

Because "Hits for 70 damage" versus "Hits for 58 damage" is quantifiable and objective.

It's hard to find encapsulated break rates on something like charm, or crit fail rates on something like pacify, or blur rates on Mesmerize because it's all subjective, and people are dumb, were dumb, and didn't post a whole lot of accurate testing. They did, however, complain about damage often, hence those posts.

"My pet broke so much tonight! It was like.. twice as often as it will be on P99 20 years from now!" -Exists, somewhere, definitely.

Will reiterate: A lot of the things that make enchanters OP are meta-gaming borderlined exploits. A pet is FAR, FAR harder to recapture without a GCD reset, and far less useful without being able to paci/blur it.

Good point on the GCD reset aspect.

And you’re correct much of the “evidence” (besides channeling being way easier which is true but is not unique to enchanters and as I understand it is a client issue not a P99 issue) is old forum posts that are also contradicted by other posts (we even have an enchanter guide from back in the day on the P99 wiki that says charm is their most powerful tool). The problem is people only pick the forum posts that support what they want to see happen and then say the staff ignores evidence.

[loramin]

Because "Hits for 70 damage" versus "Hits for 58 damage" is quantifiable and objective.

It's hard to find encapsulated break rates on something like charm, or crit fail rates on something like pacify, or blur rates on Mesmerize because it's all subjective, and people are dumb, were dumb, and didn't post a whole lot of accurate testing. They did, however, complain about damage often, hence those posts.

"My pet broke so much tonight! It was like.. twice as often as it will be on P99 20 years from now!" -Exists, somewhere, definitely.

Will reiterate: A lot of the things that make enchanters OP are meta-gaming borderlined exploits. A pet is FAR, FAR harder to recapture without a GCD reset, and far less useful without being able to paci/blur it.

Exactly! So look, if:

A) the whole point of this place is to reproduce classic

B) we have a mechanic where no one knows exactly how it was on live (ie. what exactly the classic mechanic was)

C) we have behavior here which is clearly different from classic (Druids, Enchanters and Necros all playing differently than they did on live, contradicting point A .... which, again, is the entire point of this place)

... then maybe it would make sense to try tweaking that mechanic, to try and make things closer to classic.

But to be clear, I'm not saying "let's change the charm failure rate from 10% of the time to 50%"; that would be unclassic! I'm saying "let's change it to 15%, and see if this place looks closer to live afterward".

[reznor_]

https://i.imgur.com/1VS1D7J.png

stealing this

[Scalem]

Exactly! So look, if:

A) the whole point of this place is to reproduce classic

B) we have a mechanic where no one knows exactly how it was on live (ie. what exactly the classic mechanic was)

C) we have behavior here which is clearly different from classic (Druids, Enchanters and Necros all playing differently than they did on live, contradicting point A .... which, again, is the entire point of this place)

... then maybe it would make sense to try tweaking that mechanic, to try and make things closer to classic.

But to be clear, I'm not saying "let's change the charm failure rate from 10% of the time to 50%"; that would be unclassic! I'm saying "let's change it to 15%, and see if this place looks closer to live afterward".

Almost all behavior here is different from classic, what a silly argument.

[loramin]

Almost all behavior here is different from classic, what a silly argument.

Not at all true. Tanks tank to get XP here ... just like they did on live. Soloing Shaman root/rot to get XP ... just like they did on live. Clerics heal in groups ... just like they did on live. Wizards quad ... just like they did on live ... and so on. And that's as it should be, since the whole point of this place is to emulate live.

Charmers (and, prior to the AoE-nerf, swarm kiters) are/were the only people not getting XP here the same way as people on live did! And again, I grant that some players did charm some on live ... but if you played on live you know that it wasn't anything like this. Here a Druid is an idiot if he root/rots instead of charming, whereas on live virtually every soloing druid root/rootted (or, later on, quadded). Druids here are not classic.

If the gameplay isn't classic, and we don't know what the exact charm mechanics were, why do we just assume that they are perfectly classic?

[cd288]

Almost all behavior here is different from classic, what a silly argument.

For real. Might as well delete the wiki and force people to allocate stats randomly when creating characters and cap the number of min/max race choices allowed on the server while we’re at it

[cd288]

Not at all true. Tanks tank to get XP here ... just like they did on live. Soloing Shaman root/rot to get XP ... just like they did on live. Clerics heal in groups ... just like they did on live. Wizards quad ... just like they did on live, and so on.
Charmers (and, prior to the AoE-nerf, swarm kiters) are the only people not getting XP here the same way as people on live did.

According to your opinion. For anyone new here, Loramin sometimes writes comments like Trump tweets; I.e. he picks an opinion, states it as fact, and then says “EVERYONE KNOWS MY OPINION IS TRUE” etc.

[Scalem]

Not at all true. Tanks tank to get XP here ... just like they did on live. Soloing Shaman root/rot to get XP ... just like they did on live. Clerics heal in groups ... just like they did on live. Wizards quad ... just like they did on live ... and so on.

Charmers (and, prior to the AoE-nerf, swarm kiters) are the only people not getting XP here the same way as people on live did.

Maybe that's your anecdotal experience with classic. When I played live with my druid my duo partner was an enchanter. Guess what we both did? We charmed to level and when I couldn't charm on my druid I would melee.

You are just picking and choosing examples of live that fit your argument. Clerics didn't get a CH chest to go with their manastone and solo guk to level on live, we should nerf that here. Guilds didn't level coth bots to park for races, we should nerf that here. Shamans didn't solo root rot with torpor and epic to the extent they did on live, we should nerf that here. Guilds weren't made up of 40 rogues and 20 monks to zerg down rooted dragons, we should nerf that here. The wiki and your precious hunting guide didn't exist we should delete those too. Stop arguing for change with your anecdotal "evidence" just because you remember things differently from someone else.

[Snaggles]

Wow this thing is still going?

My focused water pet hits for 62. It's not 70 but it's fine. I know now that wasn't done on accident; if the 70 hitter was Luclin that's not fair I guess in the end.

The pet still does fine in groups. Still does ok soloing (not exactly a mage forte before even). Still farms Droga just with about 15% less zeal. A raiding mage is 100% the same before and after.

Almost all behavior here is different from classic, what a silly argument.

If Loramin said "attempt to" the comment would hold up. This game is a construct of Elmers glue and popsicle sticks. The dev's are doing their best to fix a 20 year old elementary school project and doing a pretty good job at it.

[Scalem]

According to your opinion. For anyone new here, Loramin sometimes writes comments like Trump tweets; I.e. he picks an opinion, states it as fact, and then says “EVERYONE KNOWS MY OPINION IS TRUE” etc.

Yup he always states his opinion on charming as fact based off of his 20 year old memories and no actual hard proof.

[loramin]

Maybe that's your anecdotal experience with classic. When I played live with my druid my duo partner was an enchanter. Guess what we both did? We charmed to level and when I couldn't charm on my druid I would melee.

You are just picking and choosing examples of live that fit your argument. Clerics didn't get a CH chest to go with their manastone and solo guk to level on live, we should nerf that here. Guilds didn't level coth bots to park for races, we should nerf that here. Shamans didn't solo root rot with torpor and epic to the extent they did on live, we should nerf that here. Guilds weren't made up of 40 rogues and 20 monks to zerg down rooted dragons, we should nerf that here. The wiki and your precious hunting guide didn't exist we should delete those too. Stop arguing for change with your anecdotal "evidence" just because you remember things differently from someone else.

Like I keep saying, I know that people charmed in classic! I'm not saying "let's disable charming here"!

But ... charming was harder/riskier on live. As someone who did a lot of it on live, surely you recognize that fact? Or have the rose-tinted glasses of 20 years make you forget all the challenges of it ... or the fact that you had to duo with someone to make it safe (whereas both Druids and Enchanters solo charm with ease here)?

[loramin]

Yup he always states his opinion on charming as fact based off of his 20 year old memories and no actual hard proof.

Want hard proof? There are like 20+ (I can't check since the Wayback Machine is down at the moment) guides for Druids here: https://web.archive.org/web/20040513083923/http://eq.crgaming.com/playguides/default.asp?Class=Druid&Category=4. NONE of them even mention charming. If you go through every other Druid guide on that entire site snapshot (taken in 2004, AFTER Luclin) you will find like one guide for Druid charming.

So no, this is not just "Loramin saying shit": anyone who actually played on live from 1999-2001, and is being honest, will remember Enchanters were predominantly a group class, and Druids were predominantly a solo class that root/rotted (or, prior to some patches, snare/rotted). Neither one was even close to being a predominantly charming solo class, and even in groups Enchanters rarely charmed (even though, again, a few brave souls did) ... maybe because charming was riskier and more difficult.

If you don't believe me, and think I'm just making stuff up for no reason, go read the forums for Enchanters/Druids/Necros from 99-01, and then come back and tell me how often charming gets mentioned.

[Scalem]

Like I keep saying, I know that people charmed in classic! I'm not saying "let's disable charming here"!

But ... charming was harder/riskier on live. As someone who did a lot of it on live, surely you recognize that fact? Or have the rose-tinted glasses of 20 years make you forget all the challenges of it ... or the fact that you had to duo with someone to make it safe (whereas both Druids and Enchanters solo charm with ease here)?

I don't remember if it was harder or had more risk back on live because it was over twenty years ago. I just remember that is how the enchanter and I played because we thought it was cool. I didn't duo to make it safe, I was in a duo because the enchanter also happened to be my real life best friend. Why would we not play together? Guess what we did when p99 first came out. We both played enchanter/druid in a duo.

[Dolalin]

One variable here that I'm not sure is completely correct, and might never be, is mob magic resistance above level 35 and in the planes. I have read lots of stuff on the newsgroups about charm resists in the planes, and Verant communications acknowledging mob resists got somewhat higher 35+. This would affect charm success.

It could be that mob magic resistance here is a bit too low but it is very hard to prove this.

[cd288]

Like I keep saying, I know that people charmed in classic! I'm not saying "let's disable charming here"!

But ... charming was harder/riskier on live. As someone who did a lot of it on live, surely you recognize that fact? Or have the rose-tinted glasses of 20 years make you forget all the challenges of it ... or the fact that you had to duo with someone to make it safe (whereas both Druids and Enchanters solo charm with ease here)?

People have already been over this. The primary reasons charming may have been riskier on live in the classic era are pretty simple: (i) technology and internet connection...things were so laggy back then, you had such long latencies at times that a charm break could easily kill you because it would take you so long to react and get it under control (unlike today where latency is minimal, there's zero lag, and you can instantly stun lock it etc.), (ii) using clickies to eliminate the GCD such that you can chain cast your spells upon charm break (people just didn't really do this back then), and (iii) channeling on P99 is easier than on live but this is a client issue IIRC and not really fixable by P99 (and doesn't just affect Enchanters).

Charm also broke more frequently at times because people simply didn't have the min/maxed strategy down. For example, the amount of Enchanters I met back in the day who didn't think the Tash line was a worthwhile spell except for very high level group content or if you had a much lower level caster in your group. So many people also had no idea that level difference was the biggest saving roll for charm and so they'd go and try and charm mobs like equal to or one level below them; I remember being in groups where the group wanted the Ench to charm the highest level mob possible. So it's not that charm was unreliable, it's that a combo of lack of min/max strategy knowledge and tech issues made it less popular on certain servers during the initial months and years of classic. In my experience, by the time we were into Velious charming was a pretty frequent tactic for soloing (I remember as CSR dealing with a lot of petitions of people complaining about Enchanters burning through mobs in zones via charm soloing and people were getting annoyed about having fewer mobs left for them).

As the other commenter mentioned, outside of the channeling differences charm is just like anything else on this server that doesn't replicate the classic experience: it's that way because we've had 20 years to perfect the technique (plus better internet and computers as I mentioned lol). There's so many things people never did or barely did in classic that are the meta on P99; if you're willing to say all of those things should be prevented then sure we can make up some nerfs to charm too.

[Toothed]

I remember on live having an enchanter alt and not really being able to solo charm because it would break and you would lose so much mana you would have to zone. So I would join a group and be master of CC instead. It was a lot of fun. Never rolled an enchanter on green but I'm pretty sure it's a lot easier to charm. Internet connection doesn't really have anything to do with it. When kunark and velious were being released we were getting cable internet that was really fast. Everyone here wants to talk smack about someone stating opinions. Okay how about YOU go look up the code to a 20 year old game that doesn't exist. If it did we'd all be referencing that information so thanks for your 2 cents forum scum.

On a side note my level 49 shaman pet hits for 51. RIP mage bot armies

[boukk]

Most thing were harder on live, rooting, sharing, stuning, channeling.
This is an emulated server, bound to not be perfect.

[cd288]

I remember on live having an enchanter alt and not really being able to solo charm because it would break and you would lose so much mana you would have to zone. So I would join a group and be master of CC instead. It was a lot of fun. Never rolled an enchanter on green but I'm pretty sure it's a lot easier to charm. Internet connection doesn't really have anything to do with it. When kunark and velious were being released we were getting cable internet that was really fast. Everyone here wants to talk smack about someone stating opinions. Okay how about YOU go look up the code to a 20 year old game that doesn't exist. If it did we'd all be referencing that information so thanks for your 2 cents forum scum.

On a side note my level 49 shaman pet hits for 51. RIP mage bot armies

Except I’m not arguing for P99 to change anything so I don’t have to look up evidence to back what I want changed

[Danth]

Except I’m not arguing for P99 to change anything so I don’t have to look up evidence to back what I want changed

That's the important bit. Someone wants it changed badly enough, he'll have to find "smoking gun" proof. I don't agree with your own opinion on the subject and I regard charm as much more reliable on P99 than it was in the original game--but ultimately I don't care enough to spend the time trying to find "proof."

Danth

[Scalem]

That's the important bit. Someone wants it changed badly enough, he'll have to find "smoking gun" proof. I don't agree with your own opinion on the subject and I regard charm as much more reliable on P99 than it was in the original game--but ultimately I don't care enough to spend the time trying to find "proof."

Danth

Some people spend more time looking for “proof” instead of just enjoying what we have.

[Toothed]

I mean it's kind of bullshit that necros and chanters on here are fucking one man armies but it is what it is. I'll have torpor one day and then...oh wait it costs 90k plat nvm...

[Jimjam]

Some people spend more time looking for “proof” instead of just enjoying what we have.

Looking for evidence for how eq was so we can reconstruct it is literally the entire point of the server. Actually playing the game, levelling toons and so on is just an entertaining sideshow.

[Toothed]

Show me proof aliens don't exist. You can't? Guess they exist then. You guys been learning how to debate from Neil De'grASS tryson?

[Toothed]

Here is the video evidence Neil, pentagon says they are real...
"But what do the sensors really see? Who programmed them? Let's see the logs because a kooky fucking scientist probably had something to do with it. Probably a 20 year old bug in the system. Aww shucks we suck again.

[cd288]

Show me proof aliens don't exist. You can't? Guess they exist then. You guys been learning how to debate from Neil De'grASS tryson?

So what’s your alternative then? We just make changes based on someone from the forums swearing that they remember things a certain way? You’re not acting in good faith here

[cd288]

Looking for evidence for how eq was so we can reconstruct it is literally the entire point of the server. Actually playing the game, levelling toons and so on is just an entertaining sideshow.

Oh without a doubt. The problem we have on the forums is that people will just pick an opinion and parrot it without any evidence at all, or they will find old forum posts saying X and ignore the posts that contradict them and cite those as evidence. Fortunately it seems the devs have a higher standard

[Toothed]

I remember a mage pet being a hell of a beast back in the day. Hitting for 58 tho? I mean come on there's no way that is correct is there? Where's the evidence?

[loramin]

Oh without a doubt. The problem we have on the forums is that people will just pick an opinion and parrot it without any evidence at all, or they will find old forum posts saying X and ignore the posts that contradict them and cite those as evidence. Fortunately it seems the devs have a higher standard

The problem is, there just isn't evidence for some things. I know you don't have the original live charm rates, because if you did you'd post them and show me that P99 is correct ;) And it's not just you: no one does.

Back in 99-01, no one repeatedly charmed the same mob, for a statistically relevant number of times ... and then did the same at a variety of levels ... then did all that separately for each charming class ... and then saved all of their results for future Nilbog! As a result, our emulator is based on what limited evidence we do have: maybe some small subset of those experiments performed on the EQ Mac server (which went up to what, PoP? LDoN?).

Now, let me ask you something: did you play Street Fighter II? If so, you'd know that Ryu was a popular character, who had a powerful dragon punch attack. If I were to make a Street Fighter II emulator, and no one wanted to dragon punch with Ryu ... do I need to know the exact amount of damage for the dragon punch to know that I got wrong? Or can I tell that my emulator isn't emulating the original game properly, because people aren't playing my emulator the way they played the original?

We know warriors joined groups and tanked on live ... and they do the same here. Score one for our emulator, it plays the same as the game it's emulating. We also know Shaman grouped some, and soloed some by root/rotting on live ... and they do the same here. Score another.

In fact, score one for every class in the game, because they fundamentally play the same way here as they did on live! No one says "oh Mages play completely differently here than they did on live because our Internet connections are beter" ... they say "wow playing a Mage here is just like it was on live!"

When it comes to everything else, our emulator is pretty damn awesome: it emulates the game from 99-01 almost exactly ... except when it comes to charm classes ... which inexplicably don't get played in our emulator the way they did in the original.

[Gustoo]

Good analysis Loramin.

All we know is that they aren't getting played the same.

If there was no charm spell on p99 when it launched I don't think anyone would even miss it "charm doesn't work" and all the p99 enchies would be playing like the live enchies did. Ha.

[Snaggles]

I remember a mage pet being a hell of a beast back in the day. Hitting for 58 tho? I mean come on there's no way that is correct is there? Where's the evidence?

Max level staff focused water hits for 62. Nukes for 120. Backstabs for 140.

It's not the old pet. It's still quite viable even compared to EOT for tanking or the 53 rogue skelly pet for dps. If anything this patch is a kick in the tail to get that phinny staff.

[cd288]

The problem is, there just isn't evidence for some things. I know you don't have the original live charm rates, because if you did you'd post them and show me that P99 is correct ;) And it's not just you: no one does.

Back in 99-01, no one repeatedly charmed the same mob, for a statistically relevant number of times ... and then did the same at a variety of levels ... then did all that separately for each charming class ... and then saved all of their results for future Nilbog! As a result, our emulator is based on what limited evidence we do have: maybe some small subset of those experiments performed on the EQ Mac server (which went up to what, PoP? LDoN?).

Now, let me ask you something: did you play Street Fighter II? If so, you'd know that Ryu was a popular character, who had a powerful dragon punch attack. If I were to make a Street Fighter II emulator, and no one wanted to dragon punch with Ryu ... do I need to know the exact amount of damage for the dragon punch to know that I got wrong? Or can I tell that my emulator isn't emulating the original game properly, because people aren't playing my emulator the way they played the original?

We know warriors joined groups and tanked on live ... and they do the same here. Score one for our emulator, it plays the same as the game it's emulating. We also know Shaman grouped some, and soloed some by root/rotting on live ... and they do the same here. Score another.

In fact, score one for every class in the game, because they fundamentally play the same way here as they did on live! No one says "oh Mages play completely differently here than they did on live because our Internet connections are beter" ... they say "wow playing a Mage here is just like it was on live!"

When it comes to everything else, our emulator is pretty damn awesome: it emulates the game from 99-01 almost exactly ... except when it comes to charm classes ... which inexplicably don't get played in our emulator the way they did in the original.

And there are multiple reasons for why they get played differently than they did at launch which I went into in the post. Plenty of reasons beyond “charm works differently”. The simple fact of the matter is you don’t have any evidence to back up your argument beyond “well I don’t remember it being this way” and if that’s the standard then we might as well nerf a million things (mages using coth as a meta raid strategy, MQs, shaman torpor soloing, certain camps being constantly taken, the list goes on and on and on).

[Toothed]

I mean pretty much everything you named was done on live but ok

[bomaroast]

I played a magician back in the day, and I've been saying that magician pets were overpowered for as long as I've been on P99. The lower level pets still are. The defensive tables are wrong.

[cd288]

I mean pretty much everything you named was done on live but ok

Oh for sure it was. But not right off the bat. Most of those things didn’t become as common until Velious (similar to Ench charm soloing) because it took time for everyone to figure out the strategies, mechanics, meta methods, etc.

But at any rate, if you were to say “no I remember those occurring before Velious” you might be right and my memory might be incorrect. Or my memory might correct or yours might be wrong. Or our servers could have quite literally been completely different in terms of what the player base was doing (that wasn’t uncommon back in the classic era). Point being, saying “I remember it being this way” or “I know it was this way” doesn’t really mean anything because someone else could have a completely different recollection or experience.

[loramin]

You guys keep pretending like charming requires some amazing feat of brilliance, some super secret technique, or some rare magical item. It doesn't.

A Druid in their teens (with no gob ring) can run themselves out to South Karana, charm elephants, and make them kill each other, using just two spells from their spell list: Charm and Invis. And here on P99, they can get significantly better XP doing it than they can by root/rotting.

You can't tell me (well, you can, but I won't buy it) that ... with literally thousands of Druids playing on live, all of whom (like all EQ players) desperately wanted to level faster ... none of them ever tried using two of the spells Verant gave them together. But unlike here, Druids on live didn't (by a huge majority at least) stick with it ... perhaps because P99 isn't properly emulating live, and charming is lower risk and/or higher reward than it was on live ...

[Snaggles]

I know this is EQ and we all prop up weird strawman arguments for Class A vs Class B but charming doesnt really affect mages at all unless you're using puppet strings.

I know this may be shocking in 2021 but things werent fair in 1999. Some classes just had issues and the dev's response was essentially "deal with it and pay us the monthly sub".

Mages:
* Great pets, equal and more versatile than a necro. Can buy stacks of the regent for next to nothing off a vendor.
* Good nukes for non-raid stuff. Higher burst dps than necro by far
* Best damage shield
* Mala/malaise (get an orb of tashan and a midnight mallet, figure it out)
* mod rods, coth, summons, etc

It's a solid mid performer to high performer depending on what you are doing with it. Even with a 62 hitting, fairly tanky, backstabbing pet nothing to sneeze at.

Would I like another 70 hitting 210 backstabbing water pet? Hell ya. Will I sack my toon and use the proceeds to gear out another alt? No way.

[Scalem]

You can't tell me (well, you can, but I won't buy it) that ... with literally thousands of Druids playing on live, all of whom (like all EQ players) desperately wanted to level faster ... none of them ever tried using two of the spells Verant gave them together.

Prove it, prove that not a single one of those thousands of druids ever used charm to level.

[cd288]

You guys keep pretending like charming requires some amazing feat of brilliance, some super secret technique, or some rare magical item. It doesn't.

A Druid in their teens (with no gob ring) can run themselves out to South Karana, charm elephants, and make them kill each other, using just two spells from their spell list: Charm and Invis. And here on P99, they can get significantly better XP doing it than they can by root/rotting.

You can't tell me (well, you can, but I won't buy it) that ... with literally thousands of Druids playing on live, all of whom (like all EQ players) desperately wanted to level faster ... none of them ever tried using two of the spells Verant gave them together. But unlike here, Druids on live didn't (by a huge majority at least) stick with it ... perhaps because P99 isn't properly emulating live, and charming is lower risk and/or higher reward than it was on live ...

Druid charming is also more risky because you can’t tash so it’s not really relevant to this discussion.

At any rate, again charming was more dangerous because for the most part live was laggy and slow as heck due to internet speeds and computer tech. In 1999 a charm break was essentially a death sentence because things were so laggy you couldn’t instantly react (and no one used clickies to get rid of the GCD as part of a min max strategy to be able to lock the mob down even quicker). You willfully ignore all kinds of other reasons why in 1999 it may not have been as prevalent as it is on P99 (by Velious people were charm soloing everywhere)…you’re just arguing in bad faith at this point because you have no evidence and don’t want to acknowledge other possibilities than the one you want to see happen.

[Synphul]

What I remember from early live was:

A.) Most people (almost everyone) leveled in rags, and I mean rags, for the first couple expansions. Seeing a twinked enchanter was rare and they didn't stack HP/INT/CHA like we do now on P99. If a pet broke they went through your 300HP pretty quick. Add in any amount of lag and latency and you were done before you knew what happened. It's rare to see anyone leveling in rags now unless it is intentional. One charm break was probably enough to scare off 99% of players from charming.

B.) Groups were trying to fight yellow and red cons constantly so charm would have been less effective and would be practically worthless as some people describe. This is a point I don't see any of you addressing and it was the most common way of leveling in early EQ for whatever reason. Along with people thinking this was the best way to level, you think they had any patience for someone trying to charm in the group?

C.) Power gamers in 1999 are not nearly the same as power gamers in 2021 as far as knowledge of game of how game mechanics worked because the genre itself was still pretty new. Now a new game comes out and people use experiences from previous games to test the mechanics harder and faster.

So, yes, I believe people were 'dumber' when it came to EQ for the first year and it took longer than some of you think for people to figure stuff out, especially if we're talking casuals which was the majority of the player base and what the average person experienced and interacted with.

Wasn't there even a thread about the rumors and stuff people thought back then that was just completely out there but was regurgitated constantly? There's a lot of assumptions here that gamers back then 'would have figured it out' because they see how people figure things out so quickly now, but you forget to realize gamers have spent the last 20+ year perfecting min/max strats and how to test/manipulate mechanics. In 1999 the amount of people capable of doing something like that was very very slim and you think they wanted to share all their secrets with PUG#12321? Secrets were hard kept in early EQ.

IDK about Druid charming because I don't ever remember even experimenting with it in early live. I was just there to SOW, heal, and port my friends. That doesn't mean others with more game knowledge weren't doing it. I still run into enchanters on P99 that somehow make it to 50+ without charming and when asked in groups to charm they either ignore you or say they don't like charming because it's too much of a hassle. Even on P99 where charming is supposedly too easy people still don't want to do it all the time. Add in more fear/uncertainty and not wanting to be the focus of your groups ire for dying/wiping to a charm pet back in 1999/2000, where was the motivation to try with your shitty gear and limited knowledge for 99% of the player base?

[loramin]

Prove it, prove that not a single one of those thousands of druids ever used charm to level.

Umm ... I'm not arguing that ... I'm arguing the exact opposite. I'm arguing they did try ... and that most stopped, because it wasn't the clearly better way to level, the way it is here.

Druid charming is also more risky because you can’t tash so it’s not really relevant to this discussion.

Translation: I give up: charming is unclassicly easy here ... but as long as no one's threatening to classically weaken the class I play, I don't need to argue ;)

PS. Yes CD I know that's not what you are saying ... but you can't just throw out obvious evidence charming is unclassic because it refutes your theory.

[Dolalin]

I used to charm griffawns in NK in fall of 99 as a druid. I had 200-400ms pings and I remember it being decent XP if it worked but I'd die so much that it was never worth the gains. With low fps you run and react slower too, so more risk.

It's one of those things where it was a death by a thousand cuts really. Plus no gcd reset until velious because nobody knew what it was.

But anyways that's a bit off topic.

[Sabin76]

Druid charming is also more risky because you can’t tash so it’s not really relevant to this discussion.

At any rate, again charming was more dangerous because for the most part live was laggy and slow as heck due to internet speeds and computer tech. In 1999 a charm break was essentially a death sentence because things were so laggy you couldn’t instantly react (and no one used clickies to get rid of the GCD as part of a min max strategy to be able to lock the mob down even quicker). You willfully ignore all kinds of other reasons why in 1999 it may not have been as prevalent as it is on P99 (by Velious people were charm soloing everywhere)…you’re just arguing in bad faith at this point because you have no evidence and don’t want to acknowledge other possibilities than the one you want to see happen.

Counterpoint:
The devs have made it perfectly clear that they are willing to make #NotClassic changes to make the "experience" more like classic. If people didn't charm because it was too dangerous with shitty hardware and connections, then isn't it reasonable to assume that the devs can, and even should, make changes to make it more dangerous for us? For a specific example, I remind you of your favorite forumite (plus a couple others) buying up thousands of gnoll scrolls...

[cd288]

Umm ... I'm not arguing that ... I'm arguing the exact opposite. I'm arguing they did try ... and that most stopped, because it wasn't the clearly better way to level, the way it is here.



Translation: I give up: charming is unclassicly easy here ... but as long as no one's threatening to classically weaken the class I play, I don't need to argue ;)

PS. Yes CD I know that's not what you are saying ... but you can't just throw out obvious evidence charming is unclassic because it refutes your theory.

You don’t have any obvious evidence. You have zero evidence besides your own opinion that “EVERYONE KNOWS IM RIGHT THAT CHARM IS DIFFERENT ON P99.” I’ve never seen anyone besides Donald Trump argue that they are right based on their own opinion and zero evidence the way you do lol

[cd288]

Counterpoint:
The devs have made it perfectly clear that they are willing to make #NotClassic changes to make the "experience" more like classic. If people didn't charm because it was too dangerous with shitty hardware and connections, then isn't it reasonable to assume that the devs can, and even should, make changes to make it more dangerous for us? For a specific example, I remind you of your favorite forumite (plus a couple others) buying up thousands of gnoll scrolls...

Oh for sure. But as I said in an earlier comment, if that’s the route we’re taking then there’s tons of other things that should be changed as well.

[Sabin76]

Oh for sure. But as I said in an earlier comment, if that’s the route we’re taking then there’s tons of other things that should be changed as well.

I don't disagree, there.

[Vaarsuvius]

Druid charming is also more risky because you can’t tash so it’s not really relevant to this discussion.
.

Druids can (should?) Snare their pets. Who cares about Tash when you can outrun your former pet all day long, and can Root/ Snare it again?
Unless you are thinking about Perma bear pit.

[cd288]

Druids can (should?) Snare their pets. Who cares about Tash when you can outrun your former pet all day long, and can Root/ Snare it again?
Unless you are thinking about Perma bear pit.

True, with sow things are safer. But yes perma bear pit is a good example of a place you can get screwed very quickly on a charm break (and without tash your MR saving roll is way worse than the one for ench charm)

[Dolalin]

Druid ensnare was broken until Kunark, it would break randomly like root. So that's one thing that makes druid charming and kiting unclassic here... not that it's the biggest problem per se. Just a problem.